muppetfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Three Bears and a New Baby
VHS covers Hi, Scott! That other cover was the VHS edition. Wendy and I have been working on expanding the video galleries so that they're laid out similar to the records. She's been finding pictures, and I've been finding catalog numbers. So I just wanted to let you know about that. Thanks! -- Ken (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC) :That's great! But do we need the same exact picture of the cover on the page twice? —Scott (talk) ::That's not the same exact cover. It cuts off at different places in the picture, and there's a "DVD" in the corner of the DVD. -- Ken (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC) :::Did I miss a discussion somewhere about this? —Scott (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC) ::::Well, we've already got a whole bunch of video titles on their pages with places for the various formats. I didn't think there was anything to discuss. To me it's like collecting the LP, cassette, 8-track and CD covers of an album. But you might want to talk to Danny. -- Ken (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC) :::::It was loosely covered in Current Events in the discussion about revamping the video boxes. I think more as a "put the DVD in the box and the video below in a gallery like with music albums", than as a specific "let's upload a cover image of every release" discussion. If you object then we should talk about it. I think it's useful to have both DVD and VHS even when they are almost the same simply as an image to put with the documentation on whichever is not in the main box (some DVDs came out after the VHS). I don't think we want to lose that extra info. But Ken's also right -- We have CD & cassette covers that are identical except for shape on the same page. We have gazillions of LP covers that are the same except for the manufacturer logo because an LP was released in 20 countries.... so this is pretty analogous. For that matter, we have book covers that are almost identical in galleries showing later editions of books. -- Wendy (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC) ::::::It makes sense on long articles where the gallery of alternate covers is on the bottom. But on something like this, we basically have exact same image dominating the screen in two spots. I understand the thinking behind it, it just feels kinda redundant to me. —Scott (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC) :::::::Well, to me we shouldn't lose a cover image just because the article is short. If somebody could write a longer summary, or make the page longer with a chart like on Count It Higher, then it would push down the other cover. -- Ken (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC) ::::::::But we're not showing anything that's not already on the article. It's the same information, twice. —Scott (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC) :::::::::I don't know what else to say. I could point you to other articles that have VHS and DVD covers together like Peter and the Wolf, Monster Hits!, and The Best of Elmo. I admit this one looks weird because a big picture is right next to a little picture, but like I said, when somebody makes it longer, then it will look like other articles where they're farther apart. -- Ken (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::Can you link me to the discussion in Current Events about this so I can understand it better? —Scott (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC) :::::::::::The Current Events discussion was basically about changing the video box in general and may not help, but it's here. I'd generally agree that it's better to expand the page, or leave a note for expansion, than yank an image, and I don't think there was anything particularly wrong, since we have other short pages with a small gallery below. However, I think the part that's confusing Scott in this case, outside of the image (those on Peter and the Wolf aren't strikingly different either, but the scans are better and the border text may make it clearer that it's a different format), is the catalogue number, which is identical in both instances except for the "LVD" for the DVD version and "LV" for VHS. Particularly once one reaches 2003, in general the trend was for a decrease in VHS over DVD, but Sesame Workshop and, for a time, Disney and other family brands continued to release at least a portion of their product in both formats for a few years. In this case, both versions were released on the same date. So it could easily become a question of which image we want to prioritize (outside of which one simply looks cleaner, which right now is the DVD one) and that's trickier here (it's also an issue even with the catalogue number. While the easiest would be to just use both in the boxes with format in parentheses, with the new fields for ISBN and ASIN and so on, it may not work as well. Worst case scenario, to my mind, the easiest way to solve the dispute, and in any similar instances that might occur, would be to park the image or any other info on the talk page until a compromise on page appearance could be found, since Scott's primary concern seems to be unbalancing the page. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC) I could go either way. On one hand, we have a format here that displays all the information that we want to have on the wiki -- covers, dates, formats, ISBNs. I like the completeness of it. On the other hand, it really does work better on pages like Big Bird's Favorite Party Games, where it's an actual reissue, and not a simultaneous release in two formats. I think for a simultaneous DVD/VHS release, it's possible to just have a line that says that it was also released on VHS, with the number. -- Danny (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC) :Well, right now I'm trying to figure out exactly how many were released simultaneously. It looks like between 2003 and 2006, they came out together. Before that, even if the DVD came out 7 years later, they have a matching cover picture and corresponding catalog number. So I think we should rework pages based on how it looks, not on when the actual editions came out, because even if both editions of 3 Bears had come out in 2 different years, we'd still be having this discussion about how this particular page looks. -- Ken (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC) episodes Does anyone know what episodes these aired as? There were three if I recall. -- Scott (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) :Yeah, it was the last three episodes of Season 34 -- Episodes 4054, 4055 and 4056. -- Danny (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC) ::Cool. Just info-dumping right now. I'll get around to beefing this up. -- Scott (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)